/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3906030]

Hello /sci/

Can you write me a very short and simple summary of the theory of evolution? 4-8 lines.

Heres what i have and im not happy with it.

>In short, it states that life began in the water, as very simple organism, and life gradually got more complex and left the water, into what we have today, via natural selection, where in the weak die out, and the "fittest" survive, with the fittest being those which are best adapted to their environment, often caused by mutations giving an advantage.

Funny gif slightly related

[Anonymous No.3906041]

>life began

Do you want evolution or do you want abiogenesis

[Anonymous No.3906043]

Holy run-on sentence, Batman!

[Anonymous No.3906045]

>>3906041
Evolution.

I have to teach my young cousins, but im terrible at writing although i understand the concept entirely.

[Anonymous No.3906056]

>first self-replicating molecule
>natural selection begins

2 line summary, there you go.

[Anonymous No.3906071]

things started out very simple. Then changes happened that caused certain living things to do better than others, causing things that didn't change to die out. Then about 1.6 billion years worth of living things competing and joining together caused an environment where the only way to survive is to spread your genes in any way possible, giving preference to complexity and causing some crazy shit.

[Anonymous No.3906073]

anyone?

[Anonymous No.3906080]

>>3906071
Sorry it has to be quite professional.

No offense but that was as bad as mine.

[Anonymous No.3906113]

>>3906056
this. Dunno why people make it so complicated

[Anonymous No.3906125]

>>3906113
because they believe that abiogenesis could only ever occur on the earth

[Anonymous No.3906143]

when things reproduce, their offspring may be different.

if the difference helps them reproduce, they will thrive

imagine this process for 4 billion years

[Anonymous No.3906149]

>>3906030
>it states that life began in the water
evolution has nothing to do with origin of life itself
>with the fittest being those which are best adapted to their environment
no, the fittest dont need to be the best adapted but the ones with the most fertile offspring which can transport their genes into the next generation

darwin's own definition of evolution is "the theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection"

[Anonymous No.3907597]

in the beginning there were simple molecular structures, some of which could replicate themselves. The more efficient a structure was at replicating, the more it would spread; the less efficient, and the unstable, would break down.
Every so often there'd be a copy error. Most of these errors led to a less stable ("fit") copy, which would die off, but occasionally a copy error would lead to a replicator more suited to its environment; these copies would become more prevalent.
Harmful mutations would thus break down, while the relatively small proportion of beneficial, sometimes-complexity-increasing mutations would survive and spread and build on the successful mutations that came before it.

[Anonymous No.3907622]

>where in the weak die out,
No, get rid of that. Fitness refers to reproductive fitness only

[Anonymous No.3907707]

[Anonymous No.3907730]

[Anonymous No.3907745]

here is a nice overview of how it happened on this planet